There has been some interest in Congress in adding SSI provisions to the Budget Reconciliation bill being considered in the Senate. I have no idea how serious this interest is. The Office of Chief Actuary at Social Security has prepared estimates of the costs of various provisions that might be considered. These provisions are actually part of a standalone SSI bill but no standalone SSI bill can pass in the Senate because of the filibuster. The only way any of this happens is by getting folded into the Budget Reconciliation bill. The combined effect of all the provisions being considered would be $510 billion over the next ten years. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen, at least not this year. However, the main part of this -- $350 billion -- is for increasing benefit amounts generally. Increasing income exclusions would cost another $60 billion and eliminating the in kind support and maintenance rule would cost $31 billion. We'll see whether any of those end up in the bill. Some other provisions under consideration have much lower costs and are more likely to be added:
- Exclusion of retirement accounts from resources
- Repeal of the disposal of resources for less than fair market value rule
- Clarifying the treatment of certain state tax credits
- Elimination of dedicated accounts for some past-due benefits
- Elimination of installment payment rules
- Extension of period of exclusion for certain payments
- Elimination of holding out rule
8 comments:
There is a companion House bill see https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2065
While I'd love to see this enacted, there is room for compromise with the I hate poor people party in many of the details, so moving in the right direction would be a win even if compromise is made.
Low impact changes. Good enough for use in a commercial, but little help in the world.
Seems great. The rule repeals would save admin costs, and limit the significant restrictions placed on SSI recipients who are attempting to live as normal a life as they can.
The retirement accounts idea probably won't be used by SSI recipients for the most part, but it would provide at least an avenue to keep their resources below the limit. I expect once SSI recipients reach the age they are forced to start taking the money from retirement accounts, that could be a problem. Then again, given they are on SSI, in many cases they won't be eligible for significant RIB, and the received retirement account monies will fill that gap. Again, not sure how many SSI recipients will be in a place to take advantage of this change, but I don't see the harm.
Dream on. The rules for dedicated accounts were enacted as a result of the Zebley decision where parents squandered significant amounts of children's retroactive benefits. Likely built some of the casinos in Atlantic City NJ. It is a good rule. As to disposal for < fair market value , sure why not just give your $$ away and live off the tax payers ! I could go on but won't.
I don't think most of these (other than increases in payments) will have much REAL WORLD impacts on SSI payments. Now, you simply have to make sure that you're in compliment with the rules. In other words, if you can only have $2000 in the bank, you keep the rest "under the matress." Not that I am suggesting that most on SSI could have had $2000 before approval. These rule changes are largely common sense changes that CAN improve the lives of people while reducing administration costs. It's not like this is a "loosening" of the
medical rules. It only "increases costs" if you assume that the relative will provide some support, or the SSI person will work x amount... Even if it makes them ineligible. That's not really how it works. They will do only what is ALLOWABLE. Some, like politicians do, willfind a "loophole." These changes are mostly practice. Many of these changes should get bi-partisan support.
3:36, the dedicated accounts were designed after media coverage of parents buying things like a computer, roof repairs, and a washing machine (heaven forbid poor families have an option other than taking their disabled child on a bus to the laundromat). It's caused a ton of work for the field offices (why NCSSMA supports eliminating it).
It also doesn't really prevent misuse (parents weren't allowed to gamble their kids' SSI before dedicated accounts and they did anyway; a parent who wanted to take money out of a dedicated account now and gamble it still could even though it's forbidden). The current law does nothing to prevent misuse of ongoing benefits or smaller underpayments since those aren't in dedicated accounts. And the current law leads to weird disparities: why should a dedicated account be required if it takes SSA 8 months to decide a case, but not if it took them 5 months? Why should a dedicated account be required for someone who was 17 years old at the time of award when an 18 year old with a payee doesn't require one?
A good article on the history and function of dedicated accounts by a professor at Northeastern Law School is at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2962370
If I had a choice to pick a single big budget item together with one of the smaller ticket items, I'd say do away with holding out and also with in-kind support and maintenance (ISM). Those two things alone help make the SSI program the almost unmanageable mess that it currently is.
To make the costs of doing so more palatable, an SSI family maximum benefit should be implemented similar to the one applied to benefits under Title II.
ISM and couples would be the big ticket items that absolutely should be done away with. Dedicated accounts and holding out have been a joke for quite some time and are both well overdue to be retired.
Post a Comment